There is an appropriate amount of moaning and soul searching over the election in 2012, and I plan to do some myself as soon as my wrists heal, but there’s a point I really would like to examine, a hypothesis I would really like to see falsified.

Here it is: Mitt Romney’s membership in the Church of Latter Day Saints may have turned the election.

Certainly plenty of other things helped, from Sandy to the really shameless bias of the legacy media. But there’s this one thing about the election….

You may recall, I was predicting a Romney blowout, based on the really odd party ID split — the Rasmusses party ID was +6 Republican, the polls were finding samples of +6 or more D. The final turnout was about +6 D. Now, I know I said on more than one occasion that no matter what, the polls were going to be wrong, because they were contradictory, but we didn’t know which way. I guessed wrong.

The real vote, though, as Rick Moran pointed out, wan’t that far apart — one of the features of the Electoral College is that it turns small margins into bigger elector margins, which makes nationwide recounts unnecessary. The total number of votes by which the Republicans lost is in the neighborhood of a million.

And GOP turnout was 14 million less than 2008. More people self-identified as Republicans than any time since 2004; 14 million fewer Republicans voted than in 2008. I think we have to consider the possibility there was a reverse-Bradley effect here: a whole bunch of Republicans just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a Mormon.

I hope it’s not true, and if there is an afterlife of punishment, I think Andrew Sullivan (among others) tilted their scores heavily that direction by the glaring anti-Mormon bigotry they exhibited in the last days of the election. But I sure would like to know why I should believe it’s not true.

Charlie Martin writes on science, health, culture and technology for PJ Media. Follow his 13 week diet and exercise experiment on Facebook and at PJ Lifestyle

Click here to view the 109 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

109 Comments, 37 Threads

1.
Anonymous

Two things.

1.) Why should Utah really want to stay in this Federal Union? What are they getting out of it if this is what they have to face–knowledge no one will tolerate the 63 % of the people of that state who are Mormons running for national office?

I think the tariff advantage of access to US markets may help a lot for Utah to stay. The taxes paid by people in Utah is even more reason for others not in Utah to assure that they stay. Perhaps better to ask the question, what about the LDS organization encourages people to stay with a former polygamous cult started by a convicted fraud?

The people of the Mormon church are good people, but I don’t think it is the church that makes them so. Rather, the LDS church sucks funds from good people to support the top level of frauds.

DonM, I’ve seen your claim pop up countless times on the web–that is, that the founder of Mormonism was a “convicted fraud.” The bigots on MSNBC spout it as though it were established fact. It is not. I’m very well aware of the history of the LDS faith; and I’m familiar with the fact that Joseph Smith, it’s founder, was arrested many times during his 38 years. There is one historical document listing expenses for one of Joseph Smith’s early arrests–and it’s usually the source people cite for evidence of his so-called conviction. A bill of fees for a trial, is not evidence of a conviction; it is merely evidence of a trial. Neither is it a fine assessed to Joseph Smith. Those who persist in making this charge are as dishonest or as ignorant as those who claim the Lilly Ledbetter act gave women equal rights.

I was initially anti-Romney (in the primaries) but held my nose and voted for him. I was anti-Romney because I couldn’t get my head around his Mormon belief in what to me is ludicrous propositions that dwarf the Judeo-Christian beliefs that I possess. I was thinking today that it’s quite possible people stayed away because they couldn’t hold their nose.

My question is: Why should you have to hold your nose to vote for Romney?

Romney was not running for Pope, ayatollah, or leadership of a theocracy. He didn’t have a platform of providing the Book of Mormon to all American youth. There is every indication that he is a decent, moral man. So why the hell should it even matter what his religion is?

Any Christian who refused to vote for Romney on account of his religion, and thereby helped deliver 4 more years of Obama, is no friend of liberty.

Decent, moral men do not make a living doing what Mitt Romney does or did at Bain Capital. And they don’t lie about how they saved the Salt Lake Olympics when they actually lobbied for and received 1.3 billion dollars from the US taxpayers in order to pull it off. Decent moral men find things to do that are more beneficial to society and not so vulturistic.

It probably was that, in part, but if he’d been from another church, it would have been something else. No candidate is perfect. When the press emphasizes the one guy’s faults, and minimizes anything negative about the other guy, the results are always the same. The amount of viciousness on the left aimed towards anyone who wishes to upset the gravy train is astounding. I can remember when George H.W. Bush, a few weeks before the election, was staying somewhere away from the White House, and there was a crowd taunting him with a chant of “Four More Weeks!” or some such, however long until the election, because of course then everything would be alright, once the evil bastard was out of office. Now he’s fondly remembered as a Republican whom everyone got along with…seriously. The main Clinton campaign slogan was “It’s the economy, stupid!” with Bush the Elder as the stupid one.

I’m with whoever it was here earlier who said that Bush the Younger may be the last Republican president. Here in California, when we have big city mayoral races in Los Angeles and San Francisco, the Democrats are the *conservatives*. The liberals are the Greens, out-and-out socialists far more concerned about “social justice” and environmentalism than anything like how things get paid for. That’s San Francisco…here in LA, the race is largely racial, with the Latino wing of the Democratic Party duking it out with the uneasy white/black/Jewish coalition of the Democratic Party. No Republicans in sight, in either case.

They figured out how to use public money to buy elections. Many of the articles on here are discussing the possibility of voter fraud, and there no doubt was a lot, and it no doubt was mostly Democrats, but really, if only eligible voters voted, and only once, my guess is that they still would have won. It’s not just the Takers that vote for their cause, either…they have phalanx after phalanx of bureaucrats who desperately need pay raises, benefits, perqs, early retirement, and so forth, and they know they’re not going to get them from anyone with (R) behind his name, so they all vote, and all vote Democrat.

I’ve been worried about this for years now, what happens when we reach the tipping point. I think we hit it some time ago, though I’m not sure when. Ever since we’ve been the political equivalent of Wile E. Coyote. We ran of the cliff a while back, and have no clue there’s nothing beneath us except open air. When we notice, we’re going to crater badly. I don’t mean higher unemployment, I mean mobs wandering the streets of your neighborhood, looting houses looking for food, weapons, and women. And if we go, our economy is so big we’ll probably pull everyone else down with us.

Until then, all these discussions to me sound ominously like playing musical chairs on the deck of the Titanic…

People have been thinking of it even though they stopped talking about it after the nominating convention, but they may have well decided to let Obama win the election rather than burn forever in the Lake of Fire for electing a Mormon to high office…….

I doubt you know what the term ‘marxist’ really means. You people use those terms so casually and throw them around, sometimes all of them in the same sentence. It is quite obvious you don’t know the definitions of the words, but use them for shock value only.

You’re absolutely right. The leviathan filled with entitlement whores and government parasites cannot be turned. When the crash comes, I plan on being armed and my cellar well-stocked. I will protect my two little boys. And my stock portfolio? Imwill buy a safe and hide it where even those mobs can’t find it.

The real entitlement whores are Halliburton and those who want us to go to war, sacrificing our young men and women so that they can make more money. Sorry you are so uninformed as to think poor people are the cause of your troubles. Read some books or get your news from sources other than Faux “News.”

It’s not the Andrew Sullivans who bear any of the blame. It’s the voter who allows anxieties about someone else’s faith to overcome a sense of duty as to what is best for the country. As such, Mitt’s loss is dwarfed by the sobering fact that this is the kind of attitude that makes up enough of the Republican base as to make a difference in the outcome.

Christianity is under assault throughout the world. Angelea Merkel recently said that Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world. Mormonism is certainly not a mainstream Christian religion and it has not had an easy history in America and I do believe that Mormonism was a liability. Many Americans are Religious Bigots.

Talking with several evangelical Protestant and Roman Catholic friends today, I found that a) all but one voted for Romney; b) none of them considered his Mormonism an issue. Several said they felt his religious beliefs are a lot closer to mainstream Christianity than Obama’s. Also have a friend who is a practicing Conservative Jew, voted for Romney, and wasn’t in the least perturbed by his membership in the LDS.

There’s a guy further down the comments who says his Lutheran Missouri Synod brethren did just that, refused to vote for the Mormon. But I’m not picking on Evangelicals particularly — I’m just saying where were the other several million Republicans, in an election where the need was great and the enthusiasm was apparently high? And I have a dark suspicion it was anti-Mormon prejudice.

“GOP turnout was 14 million less than 2008″
No one is supposing ALL Christians stayed away because Romney is a Mormon. Only enough to add to this difference of 14 million votes. I personally had conversations with 2 voters who just could not decide between Romney and not voting because he is a Morman. Apparently some just could not get past the Mormon issue. I think it’s more an issue of the Mormon averse + the TEA Party voters who stayed away because Romney turned them away + the “I’m not voting for anyone that’s not MY guy” voters.

I’m confused. 14 Million? Romney lost by about 3 million. Are you saying Charlie that had those 14 million turned out Romney may have won by 10-11 million votes?

Mitt Romney lost by over 3.5 million votes. Not one million. Not 2.5 million. Three and a half million people voted for Barack Hussein Obama over former Governor Mitt Romney. Let’s see….divided by 50 states…gives us…seventy thousand people. So an average of 70,000 more people per state voted for President Obama, not an insignificant number. Remember George W. Bush did not get as many votes as Al Bore in 2000. George W. Bush lost the popular vote, but won the electoral vote.

“14 million fewer Republicans voted than in 2008″
That is a high number and does raise questions. Those people would have to be asked, of course. But I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to suspect that Romney’s religion was a critical factor that made the difference in this election. He and his supporters were so confident, so elated on voting day. Obama looked so exhausted and defeated on that day. But let’s face it: a black guy as president might be weird, but a Mormon in that position is very very weird, both to (non-Mormon) religionists and to secularists. The PC mob on the left would have shut up about it, maybe many conservatives just kept quiet about it. But I agree: it was there, even if mostly under the surface. And it would have kept independents away as well as Republicans.

Secularists are possibly even more turned off about Mormonism than are Evangelicals. For a secularist, Mormonism is akin to Scientology. Republicans feel free to make judgments about Scientology, concluding it is bizarre, but the same Republicans do not feel free to make judgments about Mormonism. For a secularist that lack of willingness to make a judgment is the same as the Democrats’ political correctness. The elephant in the room was Mormonism as a cult rather than a religion and no Republican was willing to talk about that. Republicans practiced political correctness and nobody could point it out. I myself didn’t realize this until after Romney lost–then I finally understood the sense of unease that many Republicans felt, but couldn’t articulate during the campaign.

I’m a life long multi-generational mormon and tbh early in the primaries I was pretty concerned about this, the anti was bubbling up pretty strongly. It seems to go away as time went on, but I think by then the antis had already disengaged. So I’m not sure where it ever showed up in the polling but obviously it did not help.

For me, it is really aggravating. Mormons have a long record of rock solid conservatism across the board and have been nothing but patriots here despite being driven out of the country in our history. To think that enough conservatives were willing to throw away the country to spite a mormon is idiotic.

I don’t think you can point to any one thing with the Romney loss, it was several/a dozen small things, thus probably but one.

I don’t care what the reason was that 14 MILLION republican voters from 2008 stayed home, especially with the turnaround in 2010 local/state election wins – they are the fault for the loss of our country.

They are are to be condemned and made to feel guilty in every way possible – it is too tragic for words!

I saw a Facebook post from a girl I knew in college who said she was “STRONGLY” against Mitt Romney because he was Mormon and she didn’t believe she should vote for someone who wasn’t a Christian. She linked some moronic article from a site called Pastors 4 Huckabee or something. (I’m a conservative Christian myself, so it’s not like I don’t believe in voting by your faith, but really.) It horrified and sickened me, and I really, truly do wonder how many stupid idiots stayed home because the best hope for America didn’t share their religion.

If indeed it is true that many Christians couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a Mormon when their country faces existential crisis, then I DON’T WANT TO HEAR ANOTHER GODDAM WORD (TM) from another evangelical Christian about the Jewish vote(more accurately, the nonreligious Jewish vote; we “frumies” are reliably Republican) always going heavily for the Democrats.

You would think that the American Christian Right would select the BEST of two options–so what’s with this “the lesser of two evils” crap ? You yanks used to be so damn positive. It would be refreshing if you’d return to that “happy warrior” attitude–you used to get so much more accomplished.

Another related factor was how the leftists were able to latch onto the Mormon angle to mock Romney. I saw acquaintances of mine who would publicly shame anyone who said anything the least bit critical of Islam or any other minority religion making all sorts of snarky comments about magic underwear and “oooooohh… here’s what REALLY goes on in those secret temples!” and other crap like that. I guess they finally found an acceptable outlet for any bigotry they’ve repressed in regards to other religions thanks to the whole PC thing, and they could justify it on the basis of it being a swipe against the Republican candidate

Obviously they weren’t going to vote for Romney regardless, but it did contribute to the overall nastiness which may have helped make those 14 million Republicans less enthusiastic.

I think you’re drawing the wrong conclusion. If you look at the popular vote total you find that Romney got about 3.5 million fewer votes than McCain. But most of that deficit came from states that Obama won in 2008 and that, largely, Romney had no chance of winning. The proper conclusion, I think, is that people have de-listed themselves from the GOP. They still voted for Romney but they don’t call themselves Republicans anymore. That’s the lasting legacy of George W. Bush and the fiscally irresponsible GOP Congresses from 2001-2006.

I voted for Romney, but I believe that the vote deficit comes from former Republicans who have become independents, or who living in NY or California know that they have no realistic chance to affect the outcome in their state.

Immigration. The law is not enforced and the State of Arizona is declared public enemy for seeking to protect its citizenry. The joint response of the political class is the DREAM ACT. Amnesty today and Amnesty ten years from now.

How seriously do you take your theology, your faith in Christ? Is it important for you, as for many Christian conservatives, to vote for a Christian candidate? Is Mormonism Christian?

There is a lot of widespread ignorance, even within the Mormon Church, about the anti-Christian ministry of the convicted conman (March, 1826) and Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith. It’s not just that he thought Christianity in 19th century America was ALL wrong, he thought it invalid, that it should be superseded by a whole new gospel, his poor Bible rip-off, the Book of Mormon. His model was Muhammed, and he boasted that we would convert as per “the Alcoran (Koran) and the sword.” He claimed revelations that the American republic would fall and a Mormon theocracy would take power and that God had delivered an “everlasting” new covenant of polygamy which allowed him to sleep with his disciple’s wives (At least 10 of Smith’s wives were already married.) From the start his gnostic sex cult was opposed by American Christians and it has only gained acceptance through the denial and revision of its prophet’s new commandments and subterfuge.

It’s not just that Mormon theology is unChristian, it’s that Mormonism is built on the lies of a charlatan and that Mormons have long held a doctrine of deceiving Christians, what they call “lying for the Lord.” There are many good exposes of Mormonism written by Evangelicals, and none of this is new — it was all well known before the GOP saw fit to nominate their first non-Christian candidate.

Informally, I’d say that close to 80% of my congregation of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, rightly refuses to vote for a non-Christian candidate. Those that stated their willingness to do so in my local Church were liberals weak enough in their faith to vote for Obama. I would not extrapolate any of this to the national scale, I know it costs Romney something, but not how much.

It is just this ignorance and outright incorrect information that hurt Romney. I don’t plan to get into doctrinal or historical arguments, but almost everything said by Roger is factually incorrect or so twisted out of context as to be unrecognizable. Furthermore, I find it incomprehensible that when choosing between two men, one who claims to be Christian, but fails to follow basic tenants of the Gospel and a Mormon who’s practice is very much in line with evangelical world views, even if the doctrine isn’t, they would sit on their ass, say a pox on both houses and then whine about the results.
Idiots.

Did you actually write “rightly refuses to vote for a non-Christian candidate”? For the Love of Life Orchestra… I’m laying it on the line: I say this with all respect and affection, but from a Jewish perspective, the Mormons are your Christians. You merely have a shorter historical perspective on highly successful heresies with new Scriptures and charismatic prophets.

But what about Martin Stephan, an early founder of LCMS — or your version of Joseph Smith? Wasn’t he kicked out because of allegations of corruption and sexual misconduct?

If your test for a candidate is based on narrow, close-minded definitions that are unrelated to the job, then you, sir, are a fargin’ idiot. When Obama screws things up over the next four years, we’ll be looking at you — you should have known better.

We weren’t voting for Pope Roger. We were voting for a President whose religious practice is not going to be imposed on anyone. His personal ethics and morals are however and that is where your fellow congregants go off the rails.

A Christian’s Faith should guide his/her vote, not the candidates church affiliation. We too often confuse our personal Faith in Christ with the church we go to.

Roger, I’ve read some stupid stuff, but you’re a new level of ignorant. First, you don’t know what either Mormonism or Gnosticism is if you’re comparing the two. Second, there’s no concept of “lying for the Lord” in my faith. Third, the historical record on polygamy is pretty scarce. There’s not even evidence of sex between Joseph Smith and his “spiritual wives”; the only report was retracted (and I have chapter and verse on that – please trust me to know more about Mormon history than you do).

And finally, those who say Mormonism is not Christian are either not familiar with the New Testament or not familiar with Mormonism. If what you say is true, then you and your fellow small-minded bigots gave us four more years of socialism as a direct result of your ignorance.

“Informally, I’d say that close to 80% of my congregation of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, rightly refuses to vote for a non-Christian candidate.”

Roger, if you’re genuine, rather than a troll, then you and your congregation are fools. Are you referring to just Evangelical candidates? Or to anyone who claims the title “Christian”? If the latter, then congratulations, Obama was your candidate. If only the former, then good luck electing a candidate, given that Evangelicals (like me) amount to about 1/4 of the US population.

“If Romney had been able win over significantly more evangelicals – and/or dramatically increased evangelical turnout in the right states – he would have won the election handily.

It is stunning to think that more than 6 million self-described evangelical Christians would vote for a President who supports abortion on demand; supported the same-sex marriage ballot initiatives that successed in Maryland, Maine and Washington; and was on the cover of Newsweek as America’s “first gay president.” Did these self-professed believers surrender their Biblical convictions in the voting booth, or did they never really have deep Biblical convictions on the critical issues to begin with? “

If Romney was such a Liberal, then explain to me that he received the full support of the person and the organization founded by… get ready… Billy Graham.

When the Granddaddy of American Evangelicalism gave his support for Romney, he sent a very, very clear sign to the rest of the flock. Those who chose to ignore it and not vote for Romney shall pay in spades for what they did.

Yes, Mitt was a neo-RINO. (see #24 below; he’s been pro-choice before).
Pro-life voters, especially, want a pro-life candidate.
Like Sarah Palin. Or any of the other “unelectable” pro-life candidates that the elite moderate Republicans are always against.

If Christians claim to be concerned about following the Constitution, they would have been very aware of a clause in our very own Constitution that should have settled once and for all whether there was a problem at all with a Mormon running for office:

Article VI, Section 3, U.S. Constitution
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

You can take it as a mandate for the government and the electorate that chooses it. An electorate that uses religion as the deciding factor in selecting someone for President is an electorate ignorant of or arrogantly against the Founders’ intent.

So, those who didn’t vote for Romney because of his being a Mormon are the ones who violated the Spirit of the Constitution on Tuesday, and very blatantly.

(I speak as a Baptist who voted for Romney, and who have had Mormons as teachers, classmates and neighbors during the course of my lifetime.)

A religious test is not what many people think it is. During the period from the reign of Henry VIII until late in the 19th or early 20th centuries British MPs were required to swear to belief in the doctrines of the Anglican church. (It may have been simply Christian, but non-Catholic belief. I’m not an expert on British law.) Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and atheists were excluded. That is what a religious test is.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a voter within the privacy of his own mind making a determination based on the candidate’s religious beliefs. Nor is there anything in the Constitution that prohibits one from making a public argument about a candidate’s religious beliefs.

It might be bigoted to make a decision based either wholly or in part on a candidate’s religion, but it is not unconstitutional.

He was a bishop in his church. They are very pragmatic- fools don’t become bishops, and cruel men do not remain bishops.

I wish they’d made more of a big deal about his religion. I didn’t know how involved he was until late in the summer. There’s a book about Mormon business executives. They talked about their work as a bishop. It is unreal how demanding it is. And yet- they do it.

heh…… and many people hate Mormons and the LDS for essentially the same reasons….’>……..

Meanwhile the libertarian Party may have grown relatively plump in comparison with Gary Johnson pulling down 1.2 million of the popular vote. Third party votes, stay home ‘votes’, won’t vote for a mormon – there were more than several leaks in the ol’ bucket and no matter how fast you pull it out of the well – there just ain’t no water………

I heard all these same arguments in 1960 (yes, I’m that old. Deal!). I went to a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church (official name: Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). For those who don’t know, it was, at the time, one of the most strict, ‘conservative’ Lutheran bodies in America. And I heard the adults arguing over whether or not John F Kennedy should be *allowed* to run for President — because he was “a Roman Catholic, and he has to do whatever the Pope tells him to. We’ll be giving the country over to the Papacy!” These are not people to laugh at for being backward. These are people who had the principal of the grade school that was at the heart of the congregation dragged off in chains because he taught Luther’s Small Catechism to the confirmation class in *German* — against the law in Nebraska during WWI. (It ended up in the Supreme Court, btw) And there were folks who *remembered* it happening. Personally. And a lot of others who had been told about it.

Now I’m hearing exactly the same booshwa (sorry, have never seen the word written and I don’t know how to spell it, but that’s what we called it in South Omaha) about Mormons. Mitt’s father was governor of Michigan – it looks a lot more likely to become part of the Caliphate than Deseret! Mitt was governor of Massachusetts – see any Mormon laws there? Good freaking grief. Hold your nose over something in his policies. But hold your nose over his *personal belief system*? Are we really that ignorant? And, yes, I mean that – ignorant = willfully without knowledge, also from the same root we get “ignore”.

I’m **Lutheran** and I voted for Mitt, and thanked God he was running, and did prayers vigils two nights in a row for his success and our Republic’s continuation *as* a Republic.

For the theory to be valid, it would have to be valid in OH, WI, VA, etc. individually. It might have possibly made a difference in VA and FL. In OH, I doubt it.

FWIW, Catholics see the world of Christianity as “Catholics” and “Protestants”. Mormons, are just another Protestant church as far as they’re concerned, as are the Eastern Orthodox. Especially with Ryan on the ticket, no Catholic is going to give a crap about Romney’s religion.

My point was that there isn’t any Catholic hostility toward any group; just “otherness”, at least in the US. The history of Catholic relations with other religions (including Jews) in the US is complicated, and very different from Europe, where a lot of antipathy remains. Catholics and Jews were both on the receiving end of a lot of bigotry during the Ellis Island era, and because of that, US Catholics are a lot more ecumenical than in other parts of the world. Mormons are just a footnote to Christianity for them, and most see them as just another “other Christian” church.

It’s not Mitt being Mormon that was the biggest reason for many to stay at home, it was the fact that he has been pro-choice / pro-abortion.

A very large number of voters in the USA consider abortion the biggest moral issue in every election. They have mostly been excluded from the Dem party, so they’ve become hugely important in the Rep party.

If a Rep candidate wants millions of pro-life votes, he has to be clearly, and even loudly, pro-life. That doesn’t mean he has plan on making it illegal — massive support for adoption instead of abortion; and support to single mothers instead of abortion, would likely be enough.

Mitt didn’t want this election to be about abortion; so for the pro-life voters, it wasn’t. This was an anchor keeping pro-lifers at home.

Him being a Mormon was just a straw in comparison. (Or maybe a very small floating rock?)

In some measures you’re right. But to put it more simply aren’t you saying if Romney had been more Conservative, and vocal about it, he may have received more ProLife votes?
Can we somehow get that through to the Republican Party?

I don’t believe that is true at all. Ryan was an obvious pro-life choice. Romney’s pro-choice stance has always been moderate compared to Obama’s pro-abortion stance. If anything, Romney was portrayed as being radically pro-life because the democrats controlled the narrative and painted him with the Todd Akin brush. Republicans need to learn how to fight for the narrative. There was no reason for anyone other than Akin to have to take responsibility for his comments. There will always be an extremist or someone who slips up saying something crazy to smear the republicans with if the republicans don’t learn how to deflect these things. It is an Alinsky tactic. Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it. For one if it was simply ignored rather than trying to defend against it, the situation could have been diffused. Another tactic is to turn the tables. If Akin’s comments were to be owned by all republicans, then why don’t democrats own Obama’s support for infanticide or John Holdren’s writings justifying forced abortions, or democrat support for abortion on demand anytime for any reason. There are moderate positions to take on abortion (safe, rare, and legal). Romney has a record of being moderate on this issue, Obama and many democrats have a radical pro-abortion position on this issue, yet the democrats were succesful painting the republicans as the radicals. This can be turned around. Seize the narrative.

Republicans should adopt Clinton’s language. Abortion should be safe legal and rare, and leave it at that. When a reporter peruses with another abortion question answer in the Newt manner: ‘Why in the heck are you asking ME, Punk!, I want to talk about the Economy. Go ask Obama why he thinks abortion should cheap, frequent and paid for by the Taxpayers!”
Punk!

Republicans need to become aware of the fact that the media is against them. They will always frame their questions to coddle democrats and to trip up the republicans. It is always a set up. If they don’t have a good answer they should just smile and say have a great day.

That is only half the story though. The democrats will lie, decieve, and distort the narrative if neccesary, and like I said previously an extremist can always be found somewhere to smear. So the tables need to be turned on them. A light needs to be shined on their extremism.

Yes, nothing *is* more extreme than the 0baminable position (leaving children born after botched abortions to die — ask Sarah A. Hoyt, survivor of a botched abortion, how she sees this).

But indeed, as long as the EneMedia control the narrative, 0bama could be eating live puppies on the steps of the Capitol and it would still get covered up (to the low- and medium-information voter, not to info junkies like us), while some stupid remark by a B-list candidate, or Romney having cut some boy’s long hair in high school the year before I was even born (I’m middle age) is blown up into a huge scandal.

Easier said than done in a country where the media outlets are dominated by one side of the aisle to the extreme. As another has pointed out on this thread, Obama could eat puppies & that would be shielded from the low-info crowd.

We’re just gonna have to shoot them one day. That is all there is to it.

So, instead of voting for a man who is not that into the ‘pro life’ position (like, what about rape, etc)… you didn’t vote, and allowed a pagan who has voted 3 times for partial birth abortion, even unto during labor. Great.

The problem is that the republicans failed to set the narrative. They failed to make the case for a moderate and reasonable approach to abortion in contrast to Obama and many democrat’s radical position on abortion and infanticide. They allowed the narrative to be hijacked, which ultimately painted the democrats as the moderates even if it was just an illusion.

Still, I find it quite stupid that a pro-lifer would stay at home given the choice and what seems to me an obvious contrast.

The fallacy of “false dichotomy” (in this case, “either conception begins at birth or abortion is permitted right until birth and even beyond”) would not be so commonly used if it weren’t such an effective debating tactic.

As I said above, then everyone who refused to vote for Romney because he wasn’t sufficiently pro-life voted into office a man who didn’t even think baby born alive shouldn’t be aborted, if abortion had been the original goal.

“14 million, 1.4 million, whatever, it was a number I read somewhere.” Why not say that Romney underperformed McCain with Republican voters by 140 million? That would’ve really driven traffic to your post. I am not going to give any serious consideration to a blogger who is that cavalier about numbers, especially when it comes to ascribing anti-Mormon bigotry to fellow conservatives or Republicans. You are just pulling that speculation out of the same fundament from which you pulled your 14 million figure.

McCain 2008 59,934,814
Romney 2012 57,856,809
Romney received 2,078,005 fewer votes that McCain.
Obama 2012 60,746,400
Obama 2008 69,456,897
Obama 2008 beat Obama 2012 by 8,710,497 votes.
If Romney had turned out those 2 Million voters we would have a virtual tie in the popular vote, Obama receiving 50.3% and Romney 49.7.

Bottom line. There were 11 Million voters out there neither Presidential candidate could motivate to show up and vote. That speaks more to the malaise and depression in this country than anything else.

im leaving the rightwing blog echo chamber…we cant understand how ‘they’ think because we are living in our bubble here. they dont think they are sheep who vote for whoever gives them a free phone or coolest ‘first time’.
they beat us on the ground but are going to be beat up by reality as inflation and crime spiral out f control. get in shape, get trained in gun use; stock food and water and find like minded friends while you still can.

I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up JFK. I too remember people afraid we were going to be ruled by the Pope if he were elected. I laughed at them then and I still do. Anyone trying to force their brand of religion on the entire country would never get anything done.

I doubt anyone could call me religious in any way, shape or form but I guess the only time religion would affect my vote would be if the candidate were a Muslim. Of course to me that isn’t really a religion anymore than Communism or the Mafia are religions.

Back in the 2008 primaries, there was a nasty little deal between McCain and Huckabee in West Virginia, by which McCain took that primary, leaving Romney out in the cold. Back then, it was my impression that fundamentalist evangelicals would NOT vote for Romney in a primary, which was the motivation for the deal.

My theory: Many Pubs held their noses for McCain & he flopped. They simply did not want to go through that again. The Republican Party had better wake up to the fact that only a very strong, charismatic candidate who is MODERATE on the social issues is going to have any sort of a chance to win. He or she must appeal to a broad enough base of voters to carry the day. There are simply not enough registered Republicans in this country to win any presidential election. The sooner the RNC realizes this, the better.

Yes, until I see evidence to the contrary, that’s what I believe. I think the McCain voters who sat on their hands this time are for the most part “values voters.” And I would like to personally thank them for placing their (in this case) bigoted values ahead of the current and future welfare of the country they claim to so love. That’s what the ballot box is for, folks. Work out the other stuff on your own time. What is it you think the Mormon was going to do anyway??

I would like to add that Mitt Romney is an exemplary individual. Temperate, principled, dedicated to God, family and country, faithful, charitable with his time and money. He embodies all the values “values voters” claim to espouse.

Just my two cents: remember the Red Rocks rally? Mitt was so moved by the turnout that he prayed to God “if it be Thy will and give me the strength.” Isn’t it just possible that he received a response? And isn’t he the luckiest man in the world not to have to deal with the mess that is coming our way?

I wouldn’t put it past certain Christian groups to have a problem with Romney’s theology. Hell, some evangelicals have a problem with Catholics. Then there’s the Orthodox. What do you do with them? He warned us against factions and then we promptly splintered into umpteen denominations over the last couple millinea. We’re human. What do you expect. This is almost like politics, isn’t it?

The title of the article is interesting. It always amuses me how often people find some particular item in our church (yes, I’m a Mormon) to focus on, often an area that we don’t. This is one of them. People have, for some reason, latched onto this idea of “magic underwear”. Amusing. We don’t, and have never, attributed “magic” to the undergarments. Ever. As far as the undergarments go, they’re a symbol to us, something to remind us who we are and what we believe in. If you saw a pastor, and he had a clerical color, would you ascribe “magic” to it? Why does he wear it? Because it’s symbolic of what he is and what he does, right? Likewise for us, but we don’t wear it on the outside. Is that so hard to understand? Additionally, it’s can be a “shield” or even “protection”, but anyone who thinks we take that literally simply is ignorant of what symbolism is all about.

“Magic Underwear” ? Just the title slants the discussion. From my understanding, there is no more “magic” to their underwear than their is to a cleric’s collar. The primary difference is that Mormons do not parade around in their ‘underwear’, nor are their underwear as ostentatious as the cleric’s collar. Maybe we should allow them their beliefs–one of the reasons your ancestors populated this country.

Okay, now tell the truth: did you read the article? Was it that unclear that I think the whole magic underwear thing, or more broadly anti-Mormon bigotry, is an utterly moronic reason to let Obama win?

It’s not the end of the world because Obama won, Republicans maintain the majority in the House and state governors. I’m pretty sure another Republican will be elected in the future as well, such is the democratic process with ever-changing demographics. That’s the failing of democracy, which although is a very noble and precious liberty, can have issues. The most obvious being that when you give people the right to choose, sometimes they make the wrong choice. Fiction cannot become fact simply because the will of the majority. Same goes for laws, even passed by outstanding majority could ultimately be damaging to the very people who supported them. The key of the government is ignorance, fear and separation. They keep you ignorant with propaganda from extreme-left to extreme-right. They keep you in fear of the other side with hate-mongering political ads that fire up your emotions. And they separate us, by making Conservative and Liberal Americans think they are enemies when in fact, they should be on the same side. They greatest weapon against your enemies or those who would challenge your will is to turn them against one another. Religion, Civil Rights and Government, while essential to humankind’s legacy and continued development, are themselves, weapons used against us all, to keep us hard-lined, distracted and fighting about our own personal agendas while elected officials are given the power by us to carry out theirs. We need to unite and set aside differences of faith, church affiliation, fiscal views, personal beliefs and self-righteous arrogant moral posturing.

The author of the article has showcased why republicans lost the election. Republicans cannot do math and refuse to learn. From the article: “The real vote, though, as Rick Moran pointed out, wan’t that far apart — one of the features of the Electoral College is that it turns small margins into bigger elector margins, which makes nationwide recounts unnecessary. The total number of votes by which the Republicans lost is in the neighborhood of a million.”

By hook or by crook, the Republicans could not pull it off and the loss was significant. The author of this article tries to tell us that only one million votes was the difference. That is factually far from correct. Why do authors of articles do that? Mr. Martin: Why do you post outright untruths in public forums?

It’s not the underwear or the religion. It is nothing but Governor Romney’s inability to make his numbers work and his refusal to be open and honest with the American people. That’s all. People are not stupid.